US Capitol attack

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Man who sat in Pence’s Senate chair amid Capitol attack pleads guilty

      by

      Man who sat in Pence’s Senate chair amid Capitol attack pleads guiltyChristian Secor, 23, was a UCLA student at the time who had founded a far-right conservative student group, authorities say A California man who stormed the US Capitol, opened the doors to other rioters and sat in the Senate chair of Mike Pence pleaded guilty to a federal charge on Thursday.Christian Secor, 23, of Costa Mesa, entered the plea in a Washington court to obstructing an official proceeding.Congress members led ‘reconnaissance tours’ of Capitol before attack, evidence suggestsRead moreMore than 100 police officers were injured on 6 January 2021, when a mob of supporters of Donald Trump attacked the Capitol while Congress was holding a joint session to certify now-President Joe Biden’s 2020 electoral victory.Secor was a University of California, Los Angeles student at the time who had founded a far-right conservative student group called America First Bruins, authorities said.According to court documents, Secor sent a text message on the day of the 2020 election stating: “We’re gonna win bigly and if we don’t we’re taking this ship down in flames,” the US Department of Justice said in a statement.He sent another message on 5 January 2021, telling an acquaintance that he had brought a gas mask to Washington and “wouldn’t be surprised if conservatives just storm the police and clobber antifa and the police but that’s wishful thinking”.In his plea agreement, Secor acknowledged that the next day, he joined a mob that poured on to Capitol grounds, climbed scaffolding to reach an upper terrace, entered and walked through the building, including the offices of the speaker, Nancy Pelosi, helped other rioters push open doors barred by three police officers so others could enter, and ended up by sitting in the vice-president’s Senate chamber seat before leaving.He later tweeted that “one day accomplished more for conservatism than the last 30 years”.He was arrested on 16 February.In return for his plea, federal prosecutors agreed to drop other charges, including assaulting a police officer.Secor technically could face up to 20 years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000 when he is sentenced in October.However, sentencing guidelines call for 21 to 27 months in prison, or 53 to 61 months in prison if Secor is found to have caused injuries or property damage, according to the plea agreement.More than 790 people have been charged with federal crimes related to the Capitol riot. Nearly 300 of them have pleaded guilty, mostly to misdemeanors. Over 170 of them have been sentenced.More than a dozen defendants have pleaded guilty to felonies and they have been sentenced to prison terms ranging from six months to five years and three months.TopicsUS Capitol attackCalifornianewsReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Congress members led ‘reconnaissance tours’ of Capitol before attack, evidence suggests

      by

      Congress members led ‘reconnaissance tours’ of Capitol before attack, evidence suggestsThe revelation resurrects a line of inquiry into the involvement of House Republicans in the insurrection The House select committee investigating the Capitol attack revealed on Thursday that it had evidence to suggest certain “reconnaissance tours” took place in the days before 6 January, potentially providing some rioters with a layout of the complex.The panel said in a letter requesting cooperation from Georgia Republican congressman Barry Loudermilk that he gave a tour the day before the Capitol attack. The startling disclosure resurrects a contentious line of inquiry that connects House Republicans to the insurrection.“Based on our review of evidence in the select committee’s possession, we believe you have information regarding a tour you led through parts of the Capitol complex on Jan 5, 2021,” said a letter from Bennie Thompson, the chairman of the select committee, and the vice chair Liz Cheney.House panel not planning to seek Trump’s testimony on Capitol attackRead moreThe select committee noted in the letter to Loudermilk that Republicans on the House administration committee that reviewed security camera footage of the Capitol before January 6 recently claimed there were no tours or large groups or anyone wearing Maga caps.“However, the select committee’s review of evidence directly contradicts that denial,” Thompson and Cheney wrote.The request for voluntary cooperation from Loudermilk indicates the panel has been quietly focused on one of the unexplained mysteries of 6 January: how certain supporters of Donald Trump who stormed the Capitol appeared to know in advance the layout of the Capitol complex.Some of the offices and ceremonial spaces in the Capitol – such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office – are marked and easy to locate. But Democrats raised concerns after 6 January that some rioters were able to locate hideaway offices and the underground tunnel network.The concerns led to 34 House Democrats seeking an investigation into the alleged reconnaissance tours that took place on 5 January 2021, which prompted a review of security camera footage by the House administration committee, according to two sources familiar with the matter.Democrats on the House administration committee turned over some of that footage to the US attorney for the District of Columbia, which is prosecuting January 6 seditious conspiracy and obstruction of Congress cases, the sources said.But the top Republican on that committee said in February that some of his members had reviewed the footage and said in a separate letter that “it does not support these repeated Democrat accusations about so-called ‘reconnaissance’ tours”.In a twist, Loudermilk filed an ethics complaint last May against Democratic congresswoman Mikie Sherrill and other Democrats who alleged GOP members had given such tours.“No Republican member of Congress led any kind of ‘reconnaissance’ tours through the Capitol, proven by security footage captured by the US Capitol police,” Loudermilk said as part of his complaint that urged the House ethics committee to investigate Sherrill.The select committee investigating 6 January events reached a different conclusion, Thompson and Cheney wrote, and identified Loudermilk as among the members who provided tours the day before the Capitol attack – at a time when congressional Covid-19 rules prohibited such tours.TopicsUS Capitol attackHouse of RepresentativesRepublicansUS CongressUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      House panel not planning to seek Trump’s testimony on Capitol attack

      by

      House panel not planning to seek Trump’s testimony on Capitol attackAfter months of uncertainty, chairman says it is ‘not our expectation’ that investigators will summon former president The House select committee investigating the January 6 attack on the Capitol is not expecting to call Donald Trump to testify about potentially unlawful schemes to stop the certification of Joe Biden’s election win, its chairman said on Tuesday.The panel has been weighing for months whether to seek voluntary cooperation or subpoena the former president in its wide-ranging inquiry in an effort to obtain his insight into unlawful schemes to overturn the results of the 2020 election.But Bennie Thompson, the chairman of the select committee, told reporters on Capitol Hill that it was “not our expectation” to demand testimony from Trump.Subpoenas of Trump allies by January 6 panel set up high-stakes showdownRead moreThe chairman indicated that the panel had decided – at least for now – against demanding cooperation from the former president given it remained unclear whether Trump would provide information that could help advance the inquiry.“We’re not sure that the evidence that we receive can be any more validated with his presence,” Thompson said. “I think the concern is whether or not he would add any more value with his testimony.”Thompson did not completely rule out the prospect of seeking written or oral testimony from Trump. He added that discussions continued about calling the former vice-president Mike Pence to appear before the select committee.The skepticism about demanding cooperation from the “principals” in the investigation, such as Trump and Pence, comes in large part because the panel is not convinced the benefits outweigh the political headaches of such a move.Trump would almost certainly attempt to turn a request for cooperation from the panel into a political circus, and if Trump asserted the fifth amendment or said he could not recall the answers to questions in a deposition, that would waste valuable time and resources in the investigation.Meanwhile, the Department of Justice has asked the panel for transcripts of its witness interviews, the New York Times reported on Tuesday afternoon.The newspaper, citing unnamed sources, noted that the move suggested a further sign that US attorney general Merrick Garland is intensifying his department’s separate investigation into events on and around January 6 last year.TopicsUS Capitol attackUS politicsDonald TrumpnewsReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Subpoenas of Trump allies by January 6 panel set up high-stakes showdown

      by

      Subpoenas of Trump allies by January 6 panel set up high-stakes showdownBefore taking its decision, the select committee gamed out scenarios: what happens if Republicans defy the subpoenas? The House select committee investigating the Capitol attack made a political and legal gambit when it issued unprecedented subpoenas that compelled five Republican members of Congress to reveal inside information about Donald Trump’s effort to overturn the 2020 election.The move sets into motion an extraordinary high-stakes showdown of response and counter-response for both the subpoenaed House Republicans – the House minority leader, Kevin McCarthy, Jim Jordan, Scott Perry, Andy Biggs and Mo Brooks – and the panel itself.Congressman Bennie Thompson, the Democrat chair of the select committee, authorized the subpoenas on Wednesday after the panel convened for final talks about whether to proceed with subpoenas, with House investigators needing to wrap up work before June public hearings.“We inquired to most of them via letter to come forward, and when they told us they would not come, we issued the subpoena,” Thompson said of McCarthy and his colleagues. “It’s a process. And the process was clearly one that required debate and discussion.”The decision came after a recognition that their investigation into January 6 would not have been complete if they did not at least attempt to force the cooperation of some of the House Republicans most deeply involved in Trump’s unlawful schemes to return himself to office.But the subpoenas are about deploying a political and legal power play in the crucial final moments of the investigation as much as they are about an effort to gain new information for the inquiry into efforts to stop Joe Biden’s certification in time for public hearings.That is evident in the conundrum faced by the subpoenaed House Republicans – with the knowledge that how they respond to the orders seeking testimony about their contacts with Trump will determine the future of the investigation and of congressional subpoena power.In the days before the select committee assented to Thompson signing off on the subpoenas, the members on the panel gamed out the scenarios and reached the conclusion that subpoenas were actually a win-win situation, according to sources familiar with the discussions.If the subpoenaed House Republicans decided to comply and provide cooperation to the select committee as the subpoenas are designed to do, then the panel would obviously benefit from their testimony, the sources recounted of the panel’s discussion.If the subpoenaed House Republicans promised retaliatory subpoenas against Democrats should they take the House majority next year then they were going to do that anyway, the select committee reasoned, and they should issue the subpoenas.If the subpoenaed House Republicans simply ignored the orders, then they would only be undercutting their ability to subpoena Democrats in partisan investigations should the GOP take the House majority next year, since they would have set a precedent for non-compliance.The extent of cooperation by the five Republican members of Congress will also set an additional precedent: if McCarthy and his colleagues appear for a deposition but stonewall the inquiry, then Democrats would surely reciprocate in kind when they get subpoenaed.The select committee left their final meeting before Thompson signed off on the subpoenas hopeful of cooperation, but not really expecting anything, the sources said. If the House Republicans agreed to testify, it would be a welcome surprise.But that final point was key, the sources said, and the panel realised the subpoenas in that sense were almost self-enforcing.The issue at play is that House Republicans have been fantasising about subpoenaing Democrats in partisan investigations should they take the House majority. But those subpoenas would have power only if Republicans did not first undercut congressional subpoena power by defying them.The “precedent” question is often derided by Democrats as foolish since they believe Republicans would happily defy their subpoenas, only to then force Democrats to comply regardless of how Republicans previously behaved, but it got some consideration on Thursday.At least one of the subpoenaed House Republicans was seriously consulting about the precedent issue with his staff, according to staffers in that member’s office. And after the subpoenas were released, none of the five Republicans notably said they would defy them.The immediate and reflexive reaction on Capitol Hill to the subpoenas centred on how the select committee intended to enforce the subpoenas, but the panel has no real interest in pursuing any legal enforcement, the sources said.If the subpoenaed House Republicans sued to block the subpoenas in court, the select committee in that instance would probably have the House counsel, Doug Letter, contest the injunctions on behalf of the panel though only as a formality, the sources said.But if the subpoenaed House Republicans ignored the orders, the select committee would probably rely on the “self-enforcing” mechanism since any effort to have a court uphold the subpoena could take months and would outlast the panel’s existence, the sources said.The panel also told itself it could always decide whether to punish for non-compliance and refer the five Republican members of Congress for criminal contempt of Congress, though it was not clear whether the justice department would take up such a referral.Congressman Jamie Raskin, a Democrat member of the select committee, told reporters that he had little patience for Republicans’ complaints about the unprecedented nature of the subpoenas – and the binds faced by the five House Republicans.“If we have continued violence waged against the Congress, the vice-president, the peaceful transfer of power, and members of Congress have information, they should come and testify voluntarily,” Raskin said. “If they don’t, all of us should come to expect they could be subpoenaed.”TopicsUS elections 2020US Capitol attackUS politicsanalysisReuse this content More

    • 113 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Capitol attack panel subpoenas five Republicans in unprecedented step

      by

      Capitol attack panel subpoenas five Republicans in unprecedented stepChair Bennie Thompson says panel has been ‘forced to take this step’ as Kevin McCarthy complains investigation ‘not legitimate’ The House select committee investigating the January 6 attack on the Capitol has issued unprecedented subpoenas to five Republican members of Congress, seeking to compel their cooperation with the inquiry into Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Biden marks imminent ‘tragic milestone’ of 1m US Covid deaths in address to global summit – liveRead moreThe select committee empowered the chairman, Bennie Thompson, to move ahead with subpoenas to the House minority leader, Kevin McCarthy, Jim Jordan of Ohio, Scott Perry of Pennsylvania, Andy Biggs of Arizona and Mo Brooks of Alabama.The five congressmen flatly refused to accept invitations to provide voluntary assistance to the investigation, sources said.Thompson said: “Before we hold our hearings next month, we wished to provide members the opportunity to discuss these matters with the committee voluntarily. Regrettably, the individuals receiving subpoenas today have refused and we’re forced to take this step to help ensure the committee uncovers facts concerning January 6th.”The subpoena letters indicate that the select committee is seeking testimony from the five House Republicans about some of the most sensitive details about Trump’s unlawful efforts to overturn the election, including their contacts with Trump.The Guardian reported earlier this week that the panel was moving closer to issuing subpoenas to Republicans in Congress, appalled at their refusal to assist in any way despite prima facie connections to the events of 6 January.What changed for members of the committee, according to sources familiar with internal deliberations, was that they could no longer ignore what appeared to be deep involvement in Trump’s unlawful schemes to overturn the 2020 election results.After the announcement, McCarthy told reporters that “I have not seen a subpoena” and repeated his previous attacks on the committee. “They’re not conducting a legitimate investigation,” he said. “Seems as though they just want to go after their political opponents.” Meanwhile, Perry called the investigation a “charade”.The voluntary cooperation letters outlined in damning detail the reasons that the select committee wanted to depose the five Republicans, as House investigators prepare to wrap up their work ahead of public hearings in June.From McCarthy, the select committee said it wanted to learn more about his communications with Trump before, during and after January 6, including a conversation in which the former president admitted he was partly at fault for the Capitol attack.The panel is keenly interested in what McCarthy believes prompted Trump to make such an admission, the sources said, since it could offer evidence that the former president had a guilty conscience for a possible future justice department criminal investigation.From Biggs, the former chairman of the ultra-conservative House Freedom Caucus, the select committee said it wanted to learn more about meetings House Republicans had with Trump at the White House in the days and weeks leading up to January 6.The panel is focusing on a 21 December 2020 meeting that took place in the Oval Office with Trump, the letter indicated, since those attending appeared to strategize ways to unlawfully delay or stop Joe Biden’s certification from taking place and return Trump to power.The select committee also wants to depose Jordan to learn more about that meeting with Trump and other communications he had with the former president, his letter said.In the letter to Perry, the select committee said he was directly involved with efforts to corrupt the justice department and install a pro-Trump DoJ official, Jeffrey Clark, as acting attorney general if he opened investigations into baseless claims of election fraud.The panel also subpoenaed Brooks since he spoke at the “Save America” rally at the Ellipse that preceded the Capitol attack, where he notably wore a bulletproof vest under his shirt, and has spoken publicly about Trump pressuring him to “rescind” his election loss.One notable and unexplained exception from the list was congressman Ronny Jackson, Trump’s former White House doctor, whose name surfaced in text messages among members of the Oath Keepers militia group that stormed the Capitol, some of whom were indicted for seditious conspiracy.Biggs’ possible contacts with far-right activist Ali Alexander are of special interest to the investigation, sources said.The committee is trying to untangle claims by Alexander that he “schemed up putting maximum pressure on Congress while they were voting” with Brooks, Biggs and Paul Gosar, another Arizona Republican, and his testimony that he spoke to Biggs’s staff and the congressman himself.Alexander obtained a permit to hold a rally at the Capitol on 6 January but that event never took place. Alexander was instead filmed going up the Capitol steps in a “stack” formation with members of the Oath Keepers militia.Thompson said the panel wanted to ask Biggs about his efforts to pressure legislators to create “alternate” slates of electors for Trump in states he lost, as well as an alleged request he made to Trump for a pardon in the days after the Capitol attack.TopicsUS Capitol attackRepublicansUS politicsDonald TrumpUS elections 2020newsReuse this content More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Lindsey Graham said Joe Biden is ‘best person’ to lead US, tapes reveal

      by

      Lindsey Graham said Joe Biden is ‘best person’ to lead US, tapes revealRepublican senator and Trump loyalist made comments in wake of January 6 US Capitol attack to authors of new book Democrat Joe Biden is “the best person” to lead the US, the Republican senator and fervent Donald Trump supporter Lindsey Graham said in tapes released on Monday by the authors of a bestselling political book.This Will Not Pass review: Trump-Biden blockbuster is dire reading for DemocratsRead moreThe South Carolina senator was speaking on and shortly after 6 January 2021 to Jonathan Martin and Alex Burns, now authors of This Will Not Pass: Trump, Biden and the Battle for America’s Future.On 6 January 2021, shortly before the US Capitol was attacked, Trump told supporters to “fight like hell” in service of his lie that his defeat by Biden in the 2020 election was caused by voter fraud.A bipartisan Senate committee has linked seven deaths to the riot that followed, an unsuccessful attempt to stop certification of electoral college results.“Moments like this reset,” Graham said that day, in a tape played on CNN on Tuesday.“People will calm down. People will say, ‘I don’t want to be associated with that.’ This is a group within a group. What this does, there will be a rallying effect for a while, [then] the country says ‘We’re better than this.’”Asked if Biden could help the country come together again, Graham said: “Totally.”“He’ll maybe be the best person to have. I mean, how mad can you get at Joe Biden?”In the year and a half since the Capitol riot, much of the country, and most Republicans, have stayed mad at Biden. The president’s approval numbers continue to plumb depths similar to those charted by Trump while he was in office.Biden is reportedly mad at Graham, a longtime associate in the Senate who despite saying he was “out” of Trump’s camp immediately after the January 6 riot, soon returned to the fold.In other taped remarks played by Martin and Burns, Graham said Trump “misjudged the passion” of his supporters.‘Short and not especially sweet’: Lindsey Graham called Biden over Trump supportRead more“He plays the TV game and he went too far here,” the senator was heard to say. “That rally didn’t help, talking about primarying” the Wyoming representative Liz Cheney, a member of the House January 6 committee.“He created a sense of revenge.”Trump remains the dominant force in the Republican party, endorsing candidates in primaries and seemingly readying another run for the presidency in 2024.A spokesperson for Graham told CNN: “The Joe Biden we see as president is not the one we saw in the Senate. He’s pursued a far-left agenda as president.”TopicsJoe BidenRepublicansDonald TrumpUS Capitol attacknewsReuse this content More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      A Sacred Oath review: Mark Esper on Trump, missiles for Mexico and more

      by

      A Sacred Oath review: Mark Esper on Trump, missiles for Mexico and more The ex-defense secretary’s memoir is scary and sobering – but don’t expect Republican leaders or voters to heed his warningMark Esper was Donald Trump’s second defense secretary. Like James Mattis, his predecessor, he fell from Trump’s grace. Six days after the 2020 election, the 45th president fired him, via Twitter. Unlike Mattis, Esper now delivers a damning tell-all.This Will Not Pass review: Trump-Biden blockbuster is dire reading for DemocratsRead moreA Sacred Oath pulls no punches. It depicts Trump as unfit for office and a threat to democracy, a prisoner of wrath, impulse and appetite.Over 752 pages, Esper’s Memoirs of a Secretary of Defense During Extraordinary Times are surgically precise in their score-settling. This is not just another book to be tossed on the pyre of Trump-alumni revenge porn. It is scary and sobering.Esper is a West Point graduate and Gulf war veteran. No one confuses him with Omarosa Manigault Newman, Cliff Simms or Chris Christie. Esper ignores Trump counselor Kellyanne Conway and barely mentions Melania Trump. He is complimentary toward Jared Kushner.In general, Esper disliked what he saw. Trump’s fidelity to process was close to nonexistent, his strategy “narrow and incomplete”, his “manner” coarse and divisive. The ends Trump “often sought rarely survived the ways and means he typically pursued to accomplish them”.The book captures Trump’s rage when advised that Gen Mark Milley, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, lacked command authority over the active-duty and national guard troops Trump wanted to deploy against protesters in the aftermath of the murder of George Floyd.“‘You are losers!’ the president unloaded. ‘You are all fucking losers!’”In addition to Esper, Milley and William Barr, the attorney general, Trump also targeted Mike Pence.Esper writes: “He repeated the foul insults again, this time directing his venom at the vice-president as well, who sat quietly, stone-faced, in the chair at the far end of the semi-circle closest to the Rose Garden.“I never saw him yell at the vice-president before, so this really caught my attention.”Esper explains why he didn’t resign: “I didn’t think it was the right thing to do for our country.”His wife, Leah, framed it this way: “As your wife, please quit. As an American citizen, please stay.”The government attempted to censor A Sacred Oath, as it did The Room Where It Happened, a memoir by John Bolton, Trump’s third national security adviser. Fortunately, the powers that be buckled after Esper filed suit in federal court. Here and there, words are blacked out. The core of the story remains.At one point, Trump proposed launching “missiles into Mexico to destroy the drug labs”. The then-president said: “No one would know it was us.” He would simply deny responsibility. Esper looked at Trump. He was not joking.According to reports, the censors found this inflammatory. They did not, however, deny its veracity. Confronted with the story, Trump issued a “no comment”. Donald Trump Jr asked if his father’s scheme was “a bad thing”. Hunter Biden isn’t the only troublesome first son.Trump’s reliance on underlings who put their boss ahead of country distressed Esper too. Mark Meadows, Stephen Miller, Robert O’Brien and Ric Grenell all receive attention. Little is good.Esper found their bellicosity grating. After a meeting with Trump’s national security council, Esper commented to Milley about its lack of military experience and eagerness for war with Iran.“We couldn’t help but note … the irony that only two persons in the room that had ever gone to war were the ones least willing to risk doing so now.”Esper offers a full-throated defense of Trump’s decision to kill Qassem Suleimani. The Iranian general had American blood on his hands and was planning an attack on US diplomats and military personnel.Esper also writes about the state of the union.“I was worried for our democracy,” he says. “I had seen many red flags, many warnings, and many inconsistencies. But now we seemed on the verge of crossing a dark red line.”In the summer of 2020, the unrest that followed the murder of Floyd transported Trump to a Stygian realm. In the run-up to the election, Esper feared Trump would seek to use the military to stay in office.Esper met Milley and Gen Daniel Hokanson, the general in charge of the national guard, in an attempt to avert that outcome.“The essence of democracy was free and fair elections, followed by the peaceful transition of power,” Esper writes.Ultimately, Trump did not rely on the military to negate election results – a path advocated by Mike Flynn, his first national security adviser. Instead, the drama played out slowly. By early January 2021, Milley was telling aides the US was facing a “Reichstag moment” as Trump preached “the gospel of the führer”.On 6 January, Trump and his minions unleashed the insurrection.“It was the worst attack on the Capitol since the war of 1812,” Esper writes. “And maybe the worst assault on our democracy since the civil war.”The Presidency of Donald Trump review: the first draft of historyRead moreYet Trump and Trumpism remain firmly in the ascendant. In Ohio, in a crucial Senate primary, Trump’s endorsement of JD Vance proved decisive. In Pennsylvania, his support for Mehmet Oz may prove vital too.Down in Georgia, Herschel Walker, Trump’s choice, is on a glide path to nomination. Walker’s run-ins with domestic violence and death threats pose no problem for the faithful. Even Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader, has bought in.Days ago, Esper told the New York Times Trump was “an unprincipled person who, given his self-interest, should not be in the position of public service”.Most Republicans remain unmoved. Esper is only an author. Trump spearheads a movement.
      A Sacred Oath is published in the US by William Morrow
      TopicsBooksPolitics booksDonald TrumpTrump administrationUS national securityUS militaryUS foreign policyreviewsReuse this content More

    • 175 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Senate Democrats aim to reveal which Republicans oppose abortion ahead of midterms – live

      by

      US politics liveUS politicsSenate Democrats aim to reveal which Republicans oppose abortion ahead of midterms – live
      How GOP lawmakers are prepping to ban abortion as soon as possible
      Groups perpetuating Trump’s 2020 election lie face scrutiny and lawsuits
      Capitol attack panel moves closer to issuing subpoenas to Republicans
      Russia-Ukraine war – latest updates
      Sign up to receive First Thing – our daily briefing by email
      LIVE Updated 12m agoRichard LuscombeMon 9 May 2022 11.10 EDTFirst published on Mon 9 May 2022 09.21 EDT Show key events onlyLive feedShow key events onlyFrom More